|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 3:07:18 GMT
X-Men is definitely intended as allegorical social commentary, to some extent. What social commentary?
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Aug 19, 2008 4:05:53 GMT
How can anything represent nothing? The first indubitable appearance of a symbol for zero appears in 876 in India on a stone tablet in Gwalior. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, abound. Eh, nothing matters b/c it all matters, it's all we have; life.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 15:40:55 GMT
Not believing in any value system or authority and disregard for socially accepted morals is a big aspect of nihilism. Those things are completely subsumed by the premise of nihilism. Nihilism is radical, untenable skepticism. The Cartesian ontological assertion, cogito ergo sum, if the validity of the skepticism is accepted, inevitably leads to the question, "Now what?". The nihilistic response to the assertion, in contrast, is to assert (as it is impossible to argue) that the validity of the logical axioms upon which Descartes' assertion is founded cannot be assumed (reason doesn't, can't, enter into this, by definition), and that therefore (hello paradox) the truth of the assertion is unknowable (despite the concept of knowing, and therefore unknowing, being the product of the same axioms). So the hypothetical nihilist can't answer the qustion "Now what?". The position is untenable. There are no nihilists. It's a notional idea that exists in much the same way the ideas of 'infinity' or 'eternity', or indeed 'nothingness', do. Inconceivable, incompatible with the human condition. As an "agent of chaos" (whatever that may mean) and a man with desires and a will and a plan to satisfy those desires, Joker has a value system, and as an authoritarian and a terrorist, Joker cannot possibly represent anarchy. A character can't be conceived that represents nihilism, because a person can't behave nihilistically. Nihilism, wherever it begins, ends like this: I think, therefore I am.Not necessarily... O rly?Yeah... uh... hm. Philosophical arguments, or lines of reasoning logically concluded (or more commonly actually the kind of compound assertions found in existentialism, postmodernism, etc), that lead to this kind of epistemological and ontological deadend are described as nihilistic. It's a way of characterising a certain kind of radically unproductive thought, practiced only by privileged academics in the humanities, really. Despite the 'ism', the word doesn't actually have any ideological content. It's "nothing-ism", it's incompatible with itself. But the popular associations with the word--pessimism, apathy, fatalism, helplessness, disorientation, misanthropy, solipsism, individualism--are trendy and marketable, and that's all that seems to matter to Nolan & co. It comes nowhere close to being serious social criticism. Gift of words my arse. ;D None of these critics are explaining themselves, and all the Nolans are offering is meaningless banalities about "evil" and "chaos" and "chance" and "'anarchy'" blahblahblah...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 15:45:43 GMT
X-Men is definitely intended as allegorical social commentary, to some extent. What social commentary? It's meant to comment on racism, xenophobia, etc. The films make a big deal out of it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 15:52:15 GMT
The first indubitable appearance of a symbol for zero appears in 876 in India on a stone tablet in Gwalior. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, abound. Haha... touché. But the word 'nothing' represents nothing, too. But they're both meaningless outside of the context of their specific language systems. I meant dramatically. Right, exactly, so the statement puts you back to square one and begs the question. It's meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 16:02:30 GMT
It's meant to comment on racism, xenophobia, etc. The films make a big deal out of it. I didn't sense anything even remotely close to those ideas when I watched it. All I saw was weird mutants, one that can throw fire, another that can extinguish it, another that goes through walls, another that has steel claws and so on
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 19, 2008 16:12:20 GMT
I haven't seen a strip from Killing Joke or Arkham Asylum yet. Yeah, wetdog is deliberately posting images from the pre-Miller comics. I'd be interested in what he'd make of those you mention, whether or not his dismissive views would change when tackling the ever-evolving character in light of all versions. I assume wetdog would describe these comics (the aesthetic of which, the 'darkness', seem to have attracted Nolan, Warner Bros. and fans) as exercises in eisegesis, or examples of fan fiction and little more... That any attempt to make more serious drama out of this universe is inevitably self-defeating, because of the psychological implausibility of its central character.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 16:45:03 GMT
That any attempt to make more serious drama out of this universe is inevitably self-defeating, because of the psychological implausibility of its central character. It was wetdog who argued (when I expressed my ire over remake of Le Cercle Rouge) that remakes are essentially new movies and trying to reconcile the differences between the two versions is fundamentally irrational, as the only thing connecting the two versions is a common title. So, why do we need to bring in the original intention of the comic books, when the new versions (Nolan's vision) could be seen as stand-alone movies. The fact the fan base is from an old version should not take away anything from this version. What I am saying is, instead of looking at the character as a "darker version of a silly superhero", we could always view it as a "dark superhero". Forget the fan base for a moment.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 16:47:19 GMT
It's not just that the character psychology is completely daffy and disconnected from reality. It's also the reactionary and dimwitted conception of the world that the stories take place in; the notion of what crime is, of what the police are, of what vigilantism is, of what wealth is, etc. You'd have to completely uproot the entire Batman universe and pull it to pieces before you could possibly turn it towards serious social criticism. They'll never do this. Why bother? Why labour to restructure material that's so deeply antithetical to your artistic intentions?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 16:54:31 GMT
That any attempt to make more serious drama out of this universe is inevitably self-defeating, because of the psychological implausibility of its central character. It was wetdog who argued (when I expressed my ire over remake of Le Cercle Rouge) that remakes are essentially new movies and trying to reconcile the differences between the two versions is fundamentally irrational, as the only thing connecting the two versions is a common title. So, why do we need to bring in the original intention of the comic books, when the new versions (Nolan's vision) could be seen as stand-alone movies. The fact the fan base is from an old version should not take away anything from this version. What I am saying is, instead of looking at the character as a "darker version of a silly superhero", we could always view it as a "dark superhero". Forget the fan base for a moment. Because they are not allowed to change certain fundamental qualities of the Batman story. Qualities that are at odds with their 'serious' intentions. I've been over this... And I'm sure there are plenty of 'remakes' whose creators have been obliged to retain certain qualities of the originals that would've precluded those 'remakes' from ever being serious art. What's your point? I've never denounced the film for a being a 'remake', or for being unserious, just for pretending to be serious. When before have I celebrated a 'remake' of a fundamentally unserious film for achieving real seriousness?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 17:01:59 GMT
It's meant to comment on racism, xenophobia, etc. The films make a big deal out of it. I didn't sense anything even remotely close to those ideas when I watched it. All I saw was weird mutants, one that can throw fire, another that can extinguish it, another that goes through walls, another that has steel claws and so on Really? It's pretty blatant. I wouldn't even call it subtext. There's explicit xenophobic fearmongering and racial profiling, they're just part of the plot, and there's overtones of AIDS paranoia. Reactionary conservatives campaigning for segregation and illegalisation of certain lifestyles, the reduction of civil liberties and human rights for particular social groups. I'm not saying it's sophisticated commentary, but it's clearly there.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 17:07:20 GMT
And I'm sure there are plenty of 'remakes' whose creators have been obliged to retain certain qualities of the originals that would've precluded those 'remakes' from ever being serious art. What's your point? I've never denounced the film for a being a 'remake', or for being unserious, just for pretending to be serious. When before have I celebrated a 'remake' of a fundamentally unserious film for achieving real seriousness? Suppose I make a film on Jesus and show him to be in love with a woman and have children, etc etc. , it goes against the fundamentals of the Jesus story as it existed several centuries ago or even the version believed by a vast majority of religious people (equivalent of your batman fan base).. I am sure there are quite a few versions like that. But would you say that they are artistically dishonest?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 17:10:53 GMT
Really? It's pretty blatant. I wouldn't even call it subtext. There's explicit xenophobic fearmongering and racial profiling, they're just part of the plot, and there's overtones of AIDS paranoia. Reactionary conservatives campaigning for segregation and illegalisation of certain lifestyles, the reduction of civil liberties and human rights for particular social groups. I'm not saying it's sophisticated commentary, but it's clearly there. Ok, probably needs a re-watch, the plot line in my memory is not very solid.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 17:20:03 GMT
There's no equivalency there at all.
Your protagonist is historical-mythological. Nolan & co's is commercial.
You would be changing the story (or more accurately perhaps, recounting the historical without the mythological). Nolan & co are not allowed to change the story more than superficially.
Jesus existed. Batman has never existed and would never exist.
An actually equivalent scenario would be if the critics were all awed and ecstatic over a deadlyserious, grim'n'gritty Power Rangers film, valourizing the filmmakers for finally getting to the dark, troubled essence of the Green Ranger, for turning a serious eye on the power struggle between Rita Repulsa and Lord Zed, and for unflinchingly confronting the moral questions surrounding the existence of, and yes!, the need for, an elite force of secret Mighty Morphin' vigilantes.
What does the Megazord really symbolise? What would high school life really be like for a Mighty Morphin' teenager? And are the Rangers and the Putties really all that different, or are they united in their respective subordination to the tube-wizard Zordon and Rita the moon-witch? These are the issues that the serious artists of our generation need to confront.
Is what I'm saying really so radical here? If you think The Dark Knight is being seriously socially critical then I urge you to go back to my earlier posts and rebut my arguments as to how this cannot be so. But right now I feel like I'm repeating myself.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 17:29:03 GMT
If you think The Dark Knight is being seriously socially critical then I urge you to go back to my earlier posts and rebut my arguments as to how this cannot be so. But right now I feel like I'm repeating myself. I never said that. I probably even agree with you (I am not sure though, I may have to read all your previous posts again to be sure). But I am questioning your notion that somehow Batman is fundamentally a kids' comic and any attempt to change the character drastically is artistically dishonest (you didn't use the term, I am summarizing).
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 19, 2008 17:36:11 GMT
So now the Power Rangers are fictional?
Kindly, sir: go fuck yourself.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 17:37:19 GMT
No, not artistically dishonest. It's artistically unserious; fundamentally, essentially, permanently so.
What is intellectually dishonest of the artist is the pretense of artistic seriousness. And then what is intellectually dishonest of the charlatan professional critics is the plainly uncritical acceptance of that pretense as sincerity.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 17:37:58 GMT
I am not familiar with the power rangers film. I did not view the film as a social commentary at all and not defending the critics here. I have mentioned before in this thread that they are probably trying to explain stuff just in the light of its huge success. What I am defending is the right of an artist to fundamentally change the popular story/character etc.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 19, 2008 17:39:43 GMT
Which they have not done.
And of course I agree artists are free to treat their subject matter however they please. I've not said otherwise, ever.
Though why any artist would try to adapt material that's through-and-through antithetical to the realisation of their professed artistic vision is an open question. Money talks though.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 19, 2008 17:46:02 GMT
I am confused. Are you saying that they have retained the Batman character as a silly superhero, but just claim to have made a serious movie on social issues and intellectually dishonest critics have just lapped up the bullshit and tried to mislead the audience into buying something that is fundamentally not there?
|
|